I've thought about that a little bit, but probably I don't have the definitive answer.
I know that if farmers have too much control and food becomes scarce and we export our food out of the country and our own families and our own citizens are either paying too much for food or not getting what they want, there will be some kind of backlash. I think keeping us competitive and keeping food relatively inexpensive is how you justify public good, in terms of research on the farm.
We're only 2% of the population now, or less; about 98% of the people have to be fed from those farms or from export.
My name is Irish as well, and my grandfather was born in Ireland in 1822. He would have been 25 at the time of the great Irish potato famine. He died in Valcartier, Quebec, in 1879. He lived through some of those times when there wasn't a proper distribution of power, I guess. I'd like to see us avoid that and put more dollars into good public research so that farmers can operate more stably.
The other thing I've noticed is that you can either pay me now or you can pay me later. It's like changing oil in your truck. If you don't look after things at the front, you'll end up paying more at the end, and either we pay that through being less competitive and having higher food costs by not having the appropriate research—and as I pointed out, appropriate research should be done partly by farmers so that there is always an alternative there. Of course, the multinationals, which have huge resources and world programs that could be leveraged for many countries, will also be part of those answers.
I don't know if that answers it or not.